An Incomplete Victory For Gay Marriage But A Victory Still


The Gay-Marriage Decision: Is It Too Narrow to Reach the Supreme Court? | News And Analysis | Scoop.itGay rights advocates are celebrating the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, but the legal battle for same-sex marriage is far from over. The appellate court itself was divided on the ruling, with one out of three of the judges on the panel dissenting. This particular battle for California's gay marriage rights may be nearing a decision, but the war over the issue in general is only just beginning. In response, conservative groups have already started filing an appeal to higher powers.
Meanwhile, whether or not gay couples will be allowed to marry again in California hinges on a current suspension of the case, which was issued by the court while appeals are filed. Despite the jubilant atmosphere of the LGBT community and its supporters, the reality is that the case is still up in the air.
This does not mean that there is no cause to celebrate. Despite the long process ahead before the dispute is brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision of the 9th Circuit Court has set off a wave of optimism for more victories for gay rights. The very next day, the state of Washington passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Governor Chris Gregoire is expected to sign the bill into law on Monday. New Jersey's legislature is also voting on a similar bill next week. However, these gains and others could all be threatened as decisions about Prop 8 continue to change, especially if the controversy surrounding the proposition reaches the Supreme Court.
Under the leadership of Chief Justice John G. Edwards, the conservatively-dominated Supreme Court has made a string of questionable decisions that overwhelmingly tow the GOP line. One example of these questionable decisions is in the 2012 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, where the Supreme Court ruled that there is no law limiting the amount of money corporations spend on political campaigns. Given the pattern of recent decisions, the most likely outcome of a Supreme Court ruling would be to nullify the 9th Circuit's declaration and uphold Proposition 8's legality. Such a result would effectively legitimize discriminatory laws banning gay marriage, but would that decision be consistent with the court's mission to uphold the Constitution?
Conservative groups argue that the government must intervene in order to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. The only problem is that such a goal runs counter to the First Amendment. Every definition of the word "sanctity" includes either the word "religion," "religious," "holiness" or "sacred".
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," meaning that it is not the business of the government to uphold or denigrate religious, or even irreligious, values.
Justice Hugo Black interpreted the Establishment Clause as an extension of Thomas Jefferson's belief in separation of church and state when he wrote the majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education. Black said, "Neither [a state nor the federal government] can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."
If the court rules in favor of upholding Proposition 8, which was brought about through the tireless efforts of religiously-based "family values" groups, they will have caved to partisanship and failed to keep religious ideology out of the American legal system. Most importantly, the 9th Circuit's decision showed that Proposition 8 also violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which protects all Americans from unequal protection or discrimination under the law.
"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," said Judge Steven Reinhardt in the majority opinion.
Proposition 8 was written to effectively marginalize an entire segment of American society by subordinating their desires to the desires of a "moral elite," so that those moral elitists can to impose their values on the rest of the nation. Christian conservatives, whether the Supreme Court agrees with their ideology or not, ought to be aware that legalizing religious discrimination directly conflicts with every American's duty to uphold our nation's Constitution and protect the rights of all its citizens, gay or straight. 

theusdvista.com   By Mike Kowalski


Comments